Kamala Harris is the future of the Democratic party
And so is Gavin Newsom...
Though she lost the 2024 Presidential election, the future of Democratic politicians is perfectly represented by Kamala Harris.
To be clear, I don’t mean that Kamala Harris will make a miraculous political comeback like Richard Nixon did in 1968. I mean that Kamala Harris represents the type of candidate that will dominate the Democratic party for the next decade.
I believe that for the next decade, Democratic politicians will be dominated by female persons of color from the college-educated professional class with few real political talents. Kamala Harris-like Democratic candidates are something that we have to get used to going forward. That type of candidate is the outcome of a political process that the Democratic party created, so they have no one to blame but themselves.
The fundamental problem is that the most successful members of the professional class, the base of Democratic electoral support, is dominated by white males. The number of women and people of color at the top of the professions is simply much smaller, and many of them got to their position less through Merit than through affirmative action and DEI policies. No, no not all female and people of color, but obviously far more than white males did.
In addition, the voting behavior of Democratic primary voters effectively puts a second layer of affirmative action and DEI policies in the filtering process. Working-class candidates and white males have much less appeal to Democratic primary voters.
In addition to Diversity checkboxes within the party to navigate, talented white males tend to be the least likely professionals to agree with the party on every issue. High-achieving males tend to care much less about what other people think (what psychologists call “Disagreableness” in the Big Five Personality Traits). Women are far more likely to care what others think and modify their opinions to comply with the group (what psychologists call “Agreeableness”).
Agreeableness is great for achieving group consensus, particularly among family and friends, but it is terrible for high achievers and heterodox thinkers. Navigating a group that strongly desires everyone to agree is exhausting and draining. Only sociopaths and narcissists who believe in nothing other than their own status and power excel in those situations. They are perfectly fine constantly lying to everyone around them, because they have done so their entire life.
And I do not typically like to psychoanalyze people who I have never met, but let’s just say that Gavin Newsom and Justin Trudeau fit the mold for sociopathy and narcissism pretty well. Unfortunately, political life tends to attract those kinds of people, so we should not be surprised if those personality types are vastly over-represented at the top of political power.
So in their quest to create gender and racial equality, the Democratic party is filtering out the best political candidates via a political nomination process that the party itself established. Politicians like all humans respond to incentive structures, and the Democratic party has unintentionally created an incentive structure that discourages the rise of political talent.
I believe that this is just one example of the Left refusing to acknowledge the constraints of material world. So a belief in promoting Equality takes precedent over success. This self-destructive and socially-destructive view can be seen in the failure of individuals, institutions and political parties.
To be a successful politician as a Democrat, one must:
Come up through the ranks in one of 12-15 Blue states that have very little general election competition. This makes the Democratic primary with a very low turnout of ideologically motivated voters “the real election” in those geographies.
This means that career advancement with the Democratic party is not determined by the ability to appeal to typical voters in general elections. Career advancement within the Democratic party is determined by the ability to appeal to a much smaller and unrepresentative group:
A very small pool of Democratic primary voters
Democratic-leaning financial donors
Democratic-leaning interest groups
Leftist activists, many of whom are far to the Left of typical Democratic voters
State and local Democratic Committees within the 12-15 Blue States.
(at the highest level of competition) The Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
All of these groups want someone who will tell them what they want to hear, and they want the message to be delivered using terminology, tone, and mannerisms that is deemed appropriate within their rarified social circles. Virtually all of these people:
are members of the professional class, which is the de facto upper class in American society.
live within affluent neighborhoods within the large metro areas of the Northeast and Pacific coast.
have an ever-expanding number of litmus tests on policy issues.
suffer from group-think mentality based on Left-of-Center ideology.
watch and read media that confirms their prior convictions,
live in fear of their own people rejecting them over a slip of the tongue or minor social media post.
Virtually none of them regularly socialize with anyone from outside their bubble. They typically do not even like people who live outside their bubble.
Why does this matter?
This all matters because the party nomination process creates powerful incentives that incentivizes certain types of politicians but seriously disincentivizes others.
So when viewed from a very high level, you get one of three types of candidates:
Progressive white males, who are supremely talented in stringing together ideological buzzwords in a semi-coherent manner (Gavin Newsom, Andrew Cuomo and Justin Trudeau). Because they lack the appropriate Diversity checkboxes, they must make up for it with rhetorical skills.
Female and POC candidates who tick off the appropriate Diversity checkboxes. They are typically far less talented than the above group because they are simply fewer in number and very likely to be promoted to a level far above their actual political skills. Kamala Harris is a perfect example of this group. She got the Democratic Presidential nomination without ever really facing a competitive election against a conservative who could win.
A few talented Purple (or even Red) state Governors and Senators, who must make up for all their disadvantages versus the above two groups by having real political talents. Andy Beshear, Gretchen Whitmer, John Fetterman, Mark Warner, Josh Shapiro, and
Joe Manchinare examples of this group.
In Blue States and local elections in major metro areas, the first two groups can do quite well. The “Blue no matter who” voters will support just about any Democrat who receives the Democratic nomination. I have no doubt that the Democratic party will dominate these geographical areas for the foreseeable future.
And particularly talented progressive white male candidates can potentially do well, but they will always be laboring against huge prejudices coming from Democratic primary voters who want females and people of color as candidates. This will force the first group to compromise on key issue stands to placate Democratic primary voters. This will make great campaign advertisements by Republicans in the general election campaign.
The third group is absolutely vital to future Democratic success in the following areas:
US President
Achieving governing majorities in the US Senate and US House
(indirectly) Appointments to the federal court system
Purple State Governorships
Achieving governing majorities in state legislatures in the Purple States.
Red States
I realistically do not think that the third group will be able to get the Democratic nomination for those offices without serious policy concessions to the Left that will alienate moderates in the general election. And even if they win the general election, they will be under the same kind of partisan pressure as Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin were in 2021-22. Both were basically driven into early retirement by their partisan “allies.”
The hornet’s nest of ever-expanding ideological litmus tests and Diversity checkboxes within Democratic party undermines competent governance.
Kamala is America’s HR manager
Kamala Harris is like an over-the-top television lampoon of an HR manager. The closest approximation that I can think of is Toby Flenderson from the American version of the television series The Office. Toby, who was played by by Paul Lieberstein, was actually played it pretty low key compared to Kamala Harris.
I ask you completely seriously: Who is more ridiculous, Toby Flenderson or Kamala Harris?
Some of Kamala Harris’ speeches and interviews are simply jaw-dropping. A very talented comedian could not have better. I would love it if it were revealed that Kamala Harris was actually a comedian who was just trolling the entire world. It is the only logical explanation.
I really wonder what she is going on inside her brain while she is talking. My guess is that it is something like “Keep those lips moving, but don’t say anything that goes off message…” Sometimes Harris really seems to think that what she is saying is very profound.
How Kamala Harris’ speaks sounds like some bizarre creole hybrid fusion of:
Legalese (she has a legal background)
Academic jargon (she also had years of higher education)
Post-modern Leftist terminology.
Her answer to Lester Holt’s question “Do you have any plans of going to the border?” with “… and I haven’t been to Europe” (his question starts at 3:52 below) never fails to get me howling!
Now I generally do not like to mock politicians for slips of the tongue. It happens to everyone. As someone who has run for state-level office, I know that it is easy to say something regrettable under the heat of the moment. With a camera or cell phone pointed at you 24/7, virtually everyone would say something stupid that they would later regret.
But Kamala Harris’ communication skills are by far the worst that I have ever seen from a Presidential candidate. And I have a hard time thinking of a single candidate running for any office - federal, state or local - who is anywhere near her low standard. Kamala Harris has set the gold standard for lack of communication skills.
And Kamala Harris is not just some random politician that I cherry-picked to embarrass the Democratic party. Kamala Harris is who the Democratic party chose to fast-track up the political ladder.
The problem is not Kamala Harris. It is the incentive structure and the ideology that places Diversity over Merit.
This is not the way Democrats used to be
Baby boom Democratic politicians largely escaped this incentive structure because they came up through the ranks of the political process when it was still in its infancy stages. Before 2010 it was possible for talented moderates to have successful careers as Democrats, especially as Presidents, Senators, and Governors. This explains the extremely successful careers of older Democrats:
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Joe Biden
Jerry Brown
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Charles Schumer
Madeline Albright
Walter Mondale
Dianne Feinstein
Richard Gephardt
Joseph Lieberman
Harry Reid
Howard Dean
George Mitchell
Robert Byrd
Tom Daschle
Regardless of what you think of them, all of the above persons had extremely successful careers, and their political talents were a key part of that success. In particular, they had the ability to relate to regular voters, and many had the courage to take issue stands that conflicted with the mainstream of the Democratic party. If they increased the chances of beating Republicans in the general election, this was tolerated and sometimes even encourage by Democratic leadership (as long as it did not go too far).
Notice how virtually every one of them were white males. Nor did any of them speak in long strings of progressive buzzwords. They expressed their ideas using terminology that regular people could understand. Many of them felt comfortable rubbing shoulders with working-class voters during the election campaign, and some even enjoyed it.
I really do not think that any of these politicians would be very successful coming up through the current process. Their only choice would have been to conform on so many issues that they would have sabotaged their own ability to reach higher levels.
The process that the Democratic party has created is knee-capping political talent. This is particularly weird given that highly-educated people tend to support the Democratic party. This should give the Democratic party a wealth of political talent, but the nomination process has produced the opposite. Indeed, it almost seems calculated to filter out the most talented candidates.
It will likely get worse for the Democrats
I was in the middle of writing this article when the results of the 2024 Presidential election rudely interrupted (Yes, I got the idea of writing this article a few weeks before the results were known, so this is not 20/20 hindsight). Being a former-professor of Political Science and Public Policy who specialized in elections, I know that it is easy to over-react to the most recent election.
Personally, I think how Trump governs will be more important to deciding the course of American politics than this election result, and I really have no idea what he will do other than the obvious. I do think this election is a terrible sign for the short and medium term for Democrats. And it has been a long time coming.
I really do not see how the Democratic party can be competitive on the federal level for the next decade, short of a terrible economy economic recession. Democrats have simply put themselves at too many disadvantages by adopting an ideology that is toxic outside the affluent neighborhoods of major metro areas of the Northeast and Pacific coast.
Republicans have a serious advantage in the Electoral College. A strong second Trump administration with a growing economy will make that even worse.
Republicans are very likely to have governing majorities in the US Senate for at least one decade. It is even possible that they will have 60-seat majorities sizeable enough that they can override filibustering.
This will likely give Republicans the means to appoint conservative federal judges for the next decade. Given that federal judges are suddenly discovering “original intent” in their rules and ignoring precedents set by Progressive judges over the last 100 years, these judges could emasculate much of the Administrative state. This will likely help to free Red States from federal government requirements.
Republicans are also extremely likely to have supermajorities in 25 Red States for the next decade. There also seems to be an energy coming from Republican state legislatures. Rather than complaining about the Left dominating education, universities, hiring practices, regulations, and the bureaucracies, Republican state legislatures are taking the initiatives.
And long-term trends of migration and economic growth make it very likely that those 25 states will only grow in importance. So successful governance will likely be rewarded with further success.
Short of winning narrow Gubernatorial elections, it is difficult to see Democrats having any real influence in half the states. This will also give Republicans a pipeline of state-level politicians to move up to the federal level.
The US House will likely remain competitive, particularly during mid-term elections with a sitting Republican President (the “out party” tends to win mid-term elections). I have no doubt that Democrats can win mid-term elections with enough support to block Republican legislation, but I seriously doubt they will be able to win a federal trifecta as they had the vast majority of the time from 1933-1967 and then again in 1993-94, 2009-10, and 2021-22.
And don’t forget redistricting in the US House after the 2030 census. There has been a substantial migration of voters away from Blue States to Red States. With the possible exception of Georgia, Colorado, and Arizona, this has been mainly Republican-leaning refugees who make their new state even more Republican.
The swing in population in the upcoming 2030 Census from Blue States to Red States may be one of the biggest in American history.
The Census Bureau has already officially admitted to serious errors in the 2020 Census, which overcounted largely Democratic states and undercounted largely Republican states. These are not trivial amounts: overcounting Hawaii and Delaware by 6.79% and 5.45% and the second most populous state, New York by 3.44%. Only one of the overcounted states was Republican, Utah. Sizable Republican states Florida (3.48%), Texas (1.92%), and Tennessee (1.97%) were undercounted, and Illinois is the only Democratic state that was undercounted.
Presumably, these errors will be corrected in the 2030 Census, so the 2020-30 swing will likely be even more sizable than post-Covid migration suggests. This will have a sizable impact on the partisan representation of the US House and the Electoral College.
Democrats are very lucky that the Covid virus hit the USA in 2020 after the census had already started. If it had hit in 2017 or 2018, the US House would be almost unwinnable for the Democrats. This is the likely outcome after the 2030 Census.
Can the Democrats swing back to the Center?
To be competitive on the federal level and in Purple States, the Democratic party must swing towards the Center.
Many political analysts believe that losing parties have a tendency to rethink their views and change them to win in subsequent elections. This has absolutely been the general rule throughout American history. One certainly saw this in the Democratic party in the 1990s. Three straight presidential defeats in 1980, 1984, and 1988 caused the party to do a serious rethink.
The results were enough to enable Bill Clinton, who campaigned as a moderate New Democrat, to hold the presidency for eight years in the 1990s (although the big Republican majorities in Congress played a big role as well). One can see this again in 2004 when a former Vietnam veteran, John Kerry, was nominated instead of the explicitly anti-war Howard Dean.
Up until that time, there was typically one overt Leftist presidential candidate (Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders) versus a large number of more moderate presidential candidates. In every election, one of the moderates emerged as the Presidential nominee.
But in 2020, Joe Biden ran against a laundry list of candidates to his the Left. While Biden styled himself as a moderate, he was clearly to the Left of virtually every Democratic politician of the 1990s and 2000s.
And Joe Biden is the last of the Baby Boom Democrats who moved up through the ranks of the Democratic party before the current system filtered white men like him out. I don’t think there will be more Democratic candidates like him.
Some political pundits point to the Kamala Harris campaign as an example of high-profile Democratic candidates pivoting to the Center. I am very skeptical that this is what actually happened. While it is very hard to tell the real motivations of career politicians who have a strong incentive to continually lie, I think that a Harris administration would have been more Leftist than the Biden administration (who was the most Leftist administration in American history).
I think that, if Harris had won the Presidency, Democrats would believe that they had a mandate from the American people and would push hard for a maximal agenda. And even if the party did not win governing majorities in Congress, they would implement their agenda in the federal bureaucracy (as the Biden administration did).
I don’t think that future Democrats running outside Blue states can:
campaign as a moderate in both the Democratic primaries and the general election, and
win the general election, and
govern as a moderate.
I believe that they will just implement the agenda in secret within the federal bureaucracy. Biden developed the template of running as a moderate and implementing a Leftist agenda, while Harris was likely going to do the same. A failure to do so will eliminate the possibility of getting the next Democratic nomination.
Democrats will fall back on their base
A key factor that is often ignored by political analysts is that as the Democratic party loses elections in swing states and districts, the more it falls back on its popular base in Blue States. So the worse the Democrats do, the stronger the ideological wing of the party gets. Or more accurately, the weaker the few remaining moderates get.
While there will always be campaign donors and DNC officials who just want to win the general election, they will likely sit back and wait for a candidate to prove they can appeal to Democratic primary voters who are far to the Left of the swing voters in general elections.
For this reason, I do not think the Democratic party can pivot to the center until Democratic primary voters get desperate enough to stop forcing candidates to pass litmus tests.
Now I don’t doubt that future Democratic candidates will pretend to be moderate. Here as well, the Kamala Harris campaign showed the way. We might call her strategy one part “The Warm Fog” and one part “Mean Girls” that consists mainly of:
Say little, except for nice-sounding platitudes that are aimed at college-educated women
Attack the Republican candidate and anyone who supports them with snarky name-calling
Pretend to be the victim if anyone disagrees
And then, if they get luck and win, implement policies via the federal bureaucracy (because Democrats will not have governing coalitions in Congress).
This may work in some Purple states, but I seriously doubt that this strategy will win a Democratic Trifecta on the federal level. So the Democrats will struggle as a minority party on the federal government for the next decade.
So what will it take for the Democrats to change?
For the Democratic party to fundamentally transform itself (and not just pretend to do so), it will likely take:
three straight Presidential election losses like in the 1980s, and
after that, a Democratic president forced to work with a Republican Congress like in the 1990s. This will give the Democrats no choice but to compromise.
Until that happens, I do not think the Democratic party can change. Their own incentive structure prevents it.
So get ready for alot more Kamala Harriss and Gavin Newsoms!
But what about the Republicans?
Republicans also have problems, though to a much lesser extent.
The Republican party is increasingly becoming the party of the working class. White professional-class voters are trending towards the Democrats, while black and hispanic working-class voters are trending towards the Republicans. The one big advantage that Republican candidates have is that they do not have to tick any Diversity boxes to win the Republican nomination. And there are still plenty of talented professionals who are Right-of-Center to give them a flow of new candidates.
The Republicans big problem is that every candidate must bow before Donald Trump. And, yes, I have no doubt that narcissism plays a big role in Trump’s psychology.
While the Democrats have a “cult of ideology” that filters out talented politicians, the Republicans have a “cult of personality” around loyalty to Donald Trump. The media and MAGA supporters force every Republican candidate to take a clear stand on Donald Trump even when it actually has nothing to do with the office being sought. This is also very destructive, but I think it has much fewer long-term consequences for the party.
Donald Trump will retire from political life soon, and I am sure that his influence will dwindle. I seriously doubt that whoever follows Trump will have a similar fanatical personal following.
In 2024 Trump has also shown an ability to attract serious political and entrepreneurial talent even among people who disagree with him on many issues (RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, Marc Andreesen, JD Vance, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy). This is very different from the political insiders that he appointed in his first administration, many of who played a key role in making it difficult for Trump to implement his agenda.
In 2016 Trump was a loner with no political experience, so he felt the need to rely on Republican and Democratic political insiders. That strategy back-firing enormously. Ironically, the supposedly “fascistic” Donald Trump was a bit naive about trusting his appointees, particularly those who served under the Obama administration. Those appointees then went on to appoint their own appointees with few loyalties to Trump or his agenda.
My guess is this new appointment strategy is due to his background in business where success requires surrounding yourself with talented performers. Ironically, losing the 2020 Presidential election may have been the best thing to happen to Trump as it gave him the time and incentive to rethink his management and personnel appointment strategy.
It is much too early to tell if those people will play an important role in the second Trump administration, but it shows that Republicans can attract heterodox talent despite the Trump personality cult. Once Trump retires, Republicans might well get better at doing so.
The above combined with a structural advantage in:
Electoral College
US Senate
(maybe) the US House after the 2030 redistricting
Federal court appointments
25 Red States
Continuing migration from Blue States, all give the Republicans a solid base for the next 10 years.
But none of that guarantees success. The performance of the Trump administration and the economy will have a big impact on America’s partisan future. If Trump is both radical and competent and lucky enough to have a strong economy, then the Republicans will likely dominate the next decade.
A timid or incompetent Trump administration or bad luck on the economy will likely put us right back to the partisan divide of 2016-23.
Stay tuned…
Very astute analysis.
An exceedingly well reasoned and well argued analysis.